[Buildroot] any opinions on uClibc-ng test-suite?

[Buildroot] any opinions on uClibc-ng test-suite?

[Waldemar Brodkorb]

Hi,

see here:
http://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/pipermail/devel/2016-October/001224.html

best regards
 Waldemar

[Buildroot] any opinions on uClibc-ng test-suite?

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

 Hi Waldemar,

On 17-10-16 20:41, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> see here:
> http://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/pipermail/devel/2016-October/001224.html

 I'm replying here because I'm too lazy to subscribe to the uClibc-ng mailing
list...

 Normally I prefer that the test suite stays with the package. At least from the
buildroot point of view, we can solve the not-complete-toolchain issue by adding
a uClibc-test package that builds the uClibc tests after the toolchain has been
built. A bit similar to how linux-tools are separated from the linux kernel build.

 I would try, however, to reuse and expand libc-test if at all possible. If that
upstream agrees with it, it shouldn't be too hard to convert the make-based
runner to a shell-based runner. Hell, the target_template can almost be reused
as-is to generate runner shell fragments...


 Regards,
 Arnout


> 
> best regards
>  Waldemar
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
> 

-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF

[Buildroot] any opinions on uClibc-ng test-suite?

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:08:31 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

>  Normally I prefer that the test suite stays with the package.

Well, I agree in general. But for C library tests, it's a bit annoying
when they are bundled with the C library source code itself. Indeed,
this prevents from building those tests in an external toolchain
scenario.

So I actually find having tests separate from the C library tarball a
nicer way, as it allows to package them very easily, and use them even
with external toolchains.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] any opinions on uClibc-ng test-suite?

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 18-10-16 11:48, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 23:08:31 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> 
>>  Normally I prefer that the test suite stays with the package.
> 
> Well, I agree in general. But for C library tests, it's a bit annoying
> when they are bundled with the C library source code itself. Indeed,
> this prevents from building those tests in an external toolchain
> scenario.
> 
> So I actually find having tests separate from the C library tarball a
> nicer way, as it allows to package them very easily, and use them even
> with external toolchains.

 Ack that.

 Regards,
 Arnout


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF